HACBANG CASE

FACTS:
1. Bishop Sofronio died leaving several properties behind.
2. He was survived by his parents and siblings.
3. Petitioners: Dolores (grandchild of Sofronio’s brother Perfecto) and Bernardo who is a son
of Joaquin (another brother of Sofronio)
4. Bishop left a will leaving:
a. ½ of his properties to his parents
b. Other half: Dolores, his sister
5. Register of Deeds of QC issued a TCT over subject in the name of Basilio (Bishop’s father).
This TCT cancelled another TCT.
6. Dolores(Bishop’s sister) moved to revive the settlement proceedings because CFI had not
yet completed adjudicating properties but this was denied because order to archive had
long been final and executory.
7. Petitioners filed petition to cancel TCT on the ground that it was secured through fraud.
8. Basilio (Bishop’s father) moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners have
no legal interest.
RTC:
1. RTC dismissed petition on the ground that petitioners had no right to prosecute.
2. They noted that Bishop’s will had been admitted to probate this instrinsic validity is no
longer in question.
3. Bishop already designated his heirs and that his parents were the compulsory heirs entitled
to half of his estate and his sister is entitled to the other half.
Court of Appeals:
1. Petitioners argue:
(1) Bishop Sofronio's will did not validly transfer the subject property to Dolores Hacbang
Alo;
(2)the probate of the will is not conclusive as to the validity of its intrinsic
provisions; and
(3) only a final decree of distribution of the estate vests title on the properties from the
estate on the distributes
- They further argued that the distribution of the estate should be
governed by intestate succession because:
(1) the subject property was not adjudicated; and
(2) the settlement proceedings were archived and dismissed.
- Thus, all the properties passed on to and became part of the estate of Bishop
Sofronio's parents.
- The petitioners concluded that they had legal interest in
the subject lot as representatives of their ascendants, the other children of
Bishop Sofronio's parents.
2. CA affirmed RTC’s order of dismissal. It held that the admission of Bishop precluded
intestate succession unless will is intrinsicall valid. Settlement proceedings were not
dismissed but archived and thus, did not lose its validity because proceedings were
archived. Bishop did not die intestate.
 3. The presence of Bishop’s parents during his death excluded his brothers and sisters as
cumpolsory heirs. So, petitioners have no legal interest.
ISSUES:
(1) that the CA erred when it failed to rule on the validity of TCT No. 169342;
(2) that the probate proceedings of the estate was dismissed, not archived; and
(3) that the CA erred when it used Bishop Sofronio's will as basis to declare that they are not real
parties in interest.

HELD:
1. Law in force at that time is 1889 Civil Code and 1901 Code of Civil Procedure ownership
over the inheritance passes to the heirs at the precise moment of death — not at the time
the heirs are declared, nor at the time of the partition, nor at the distribution of the
properties.

2. For intestate heirs, this means that they are immediately entitled to their hereditary shares
in the estate even though they may not be entitled to any particular properties yet. For
legatees and devisees granted specific properties, this means that they acquire ownership
over the legacies and devises at that immediate moment without prejudice to the legitimes
of compulsory heirs.

3. Bishop Sofronio did not die intestate. He left a will that was probated in 1937. He left half of
his properties to his parents and the remaining half to his sister Dolores Hacbang Alo. The
admission of his will to probate is conclusive with respect to its due execution and extrinsic
validity

4. the settlement proceedings were never concluded; the case was archived without any
pronouncement as to the intrinsic validity of the will or an adjudication of the properties.
Because of this, the petitioners posit that intestate succession should govern. They maintain
that the entire inheritance should have gone to Bishop Sofronio's parents, the petitioners'
ascendants.
5. Art. 763 states that a person without compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate, either in
part or in its entirety, in favor of anyone capacitated to succeed him; if the testator has
compulsory heirs, he can dispose of his property provided he does not impair their
legitimes.

INTRINSIC VALIDITY
Even though the CFI archived the settlement proceedings, there is no indication that it
declared any of the dispositions in the will invalid. The records are understandably bare
considering the probate proceedings were initiated as early as 1937. Nonetheless, we find no
reason to doubt the intrinsic validity of the will.

Bishop Sofronio was free to dispose of his estate without prejudice to the legitimes of his
compulsory heirs. Bishop Sofronio's only compulsory heirs were his parents. Their legitime was
one-half of Bishop Sofronio's estate. Considering that Bishop Sofronio gave his parents half of his
estate, then he was free to dispose of the free portion of his estate in favor of his sister, Dolores
Hacbang Alo. Thus, his will was intrinsically valid.
FAILURE TO ADJUDICATE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
- Irrelevant
- Bishop Sofronio did not just name his heirs; he also identified the specific properties
forming part of their inheritance. The dispositions in the will rendered court adjudication
and distribution unnecessary
- However, heirs, legatees, and devisees bequeathed specific properties do not require Court
adjudication to identify which particular properties become theirs; the testator had already
identified these. From the very moment of the testator's death, title over particular
properties vests on heir, legatees or devisee.

LEGAL INTEREST
- Bishop Sofronio's parents, Basilio and Maria Gaborny Hacbang, never acquired the title over
the subject lot. Thus, it never became part of their estate. Clearly, the petitioners — who
claim to represent the children of Basilio and Maria Gaborny in the spouses' estate — have
no legal right or interest over the subject lot.

- Petitioners came to the courts praying for the annulment of the respondent's title yet they
failed to show that they are entitled to even ask for such relief. They have no right over the
subject lot and the respondent has no legal obligation to them with respect to the subject
lot. Even if we assume that the respondent fraudulently or irregularly secured his certificate
of title, the bottom-line is that the petitioners have no legal standing to sue for the
cancellation of title.